Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses timing ('Expect 15-60s; thorough ... up to ~90s'), the return of contradictions[] and gaps[], the resolvability of citations (citation_uri ... always fetchable), and the semantic excerpting of large records. It also mentions account/plan requirements. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is thorough but somewhat verbose, with minor redundancy such as 'in ONE call' appearing twice and 'NOT open-web search' repeated. However, it is well-organized, with clear sections for account requirements, usage guidance, depth behavior, and output characteristics, so nearly every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the findings packet (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri), contradictions[], gaps[], and the behavior of the depth parameter. It also covers account requirements, timing, limitations on unstructured topics, and the alternative tool. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, and the description elaborates further: it explains the depth parameter's values ('quick=3 (single hop)', 'standard=3 ... adds a gap-recovery hop ... plus a contradictions[] scan', 'thorough=6 ... adds a full iterative hop') and the question parameter's purpose. This goes beyond the schema to clarify behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call' and 'Decomposes your question into focused facets, routes each to the right one of 5,801 tools IN PARALLEL, and returns a findings packet'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by naming the alternative and the condition for its use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx (one LLM call, not many)', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx', and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'. It also explains depth behavior and account requirements, leaving no ambiguity about the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.